So far this week, Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line government, defying the
Western powers, has approved construction of more than 6,000 new housing
units. The approvals follow an announcement late last month that Israel
would continue planning for new development in the E1 area — a project
northeast of Jerusalem that would split the West Bank and prevent the
creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state. Ban Ki-moon, the
secretary general of the United Nations, has called this project an
“almost fatal blow” to a two-state solution.

Anyone following the New York Times and its critics knows that the Times
reported that building in E1 would split the West Bank in two. When
CAMERA pointed this out to them, it occasioned, not one, but three corrections.
Instead of making the false claim, the editorial is now forced to use
the term "viable contiguous." Contiguous, though, is a binary state.
Either something is contiguous or it isn't. The qualification "viable,"
really doesn't modify "contiguous." But accept for the sake of argument
that the narrowness of distance between Maaleh Adumim and Jordan is
inimical to the viability of a Palestinian state, why doesn't Israel's narrowness at Netanya make Israel non-viable?

Mr. Netanyahu gave the go-ahead in retaliation for the United Nations
vote to elevate the status of Palestine. Israel is also withholding
$100 million in tax revenues it collects monthly for the Palestinian
Authority, which needs the money to pay salaries. As a result, the
Palestinian prime minister, Salam Fayyad, on Thursday called for a
boycott of Israeli goods.

The UN gambit - which Abbas presaged in an op-ed for the New York Times a year and a half ago - was a violation of the principles on which mutual recognition
of Israel and the PLO was based. Yasser Arafat promised to settle
differences through negotiations and rejected violence. We know that he
didn't do the latter. His predecessor by turning to the UN violated the
former. Where's the criticism of Abbas?

Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, hopes for Mideast peace have envisioned
two states, for two peoples, living side by side in security. But there
is increasing talk now of a one-state future, which would be disastrous
to both sides. By absorbing the West Bank, Israel would risk its
character as a Jewish state because Israeli Jews could become a minority
in their own country. Israelis would also have to decide whether to
give Palestinians equal rights, the denial of which would harm Israel’s
standing as a democracy.

"Increasing talk" is hardly an argument. In any case since late 1995, more than 90% of the Palestinians in the West Bank
have fallen under the control of the Palestinian Authority. With Israel
also leaving Gaza in 2005, demographics are no longer a problem. What's
left is a border dispute. The demographic argument is outdated and is
only used as a cudgel against Israel, when a critic sees nothing to
criticize about the Palestinians.

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is a weak leader who has
squandered chances to negotiate peace. But he is the best partner Israel
has, and Mr. Netanyahu’s belligerence, including the settlement
activity, increases the stature of Hamas, Mr. Abbas’s violent rival.
It is Hamas that has been shooting rockets into Israel, and it is
Hamas’s leader, Khaled Meshal, who has vowed never to recognize Israel.
Mr. Abbas, by contrast, has forsaken violence and criticized Mr. Meshal
for not recognizing Israel. The space for a peace deal is shrinking.
While no one can impose a peace, the United States is still the most
credible mediator. At a minimum, President Obama should be exhorting
both sides to halt retaliatory measures. Arab and European leaders also
need to show leadership. This is not a problem that will fix itself.

It's nice of them to note that Abbas has squandered chances. But he
didn't just squander chances to negotiate, he rejected an offer from
Ehud Olmert in 2008. It's hard to see how "settlement activity" is
"belligerent." What is belligerent, is attempting to ally oneself with a
terrorist organization. That is what the New York Times reported In Step Toward Palestinian Unity, Hamas Holds Rally in West Bank that Mahmoud Abbas is doing.

“Reconciliation, by definition, is a very, very long-term process —
it involves a lot of grievances and, unfortunately, blood,” said Husam
Zomlot, a Fatah official. “It’s not going to be a single bullet. There
will have to be a gradual process of deescalating, normalizing political
processes. It doesn’t mean years; it could happen within weeks.”
Mr. Zomlot and other West Bank political leaders said Thursday’s rally
was an important step in building unity on the ground. It was not a
large demonstration — perhaps 1,000 Hamas supporters gathered after the
march in Nablus’s bustling main square, with a similar number of
onlookers smiling from the periphery, many leaning out from five levels
of the municipal mall’s parking garage. It was peaceful and orderly
under crisp sunshine, with no visible presence of Palestinian security
officials other than those directing traffic on nearby streets.

And yes, in that article, there's an acknowledgment that "Mr. Abbas
sought to downplay the differences" between Fatah and Hamas and that he
criticized Khaled Meshal. But if Abbas is trying reconciliation with
Hamas he is rejecting peace with Israel, which really calls into
question how good a partner he is. The weak criticism pales in
comparison to his perfidious actions.

(It's a measure of the Times's intellectual incoherence that recently, in another editorial, argued "It is getting harder to see how he can muster the leadership required to
unite Hamas with Fatah in the pursuit of any comprehensive long-term
peace deal with Israel." If Hamas is so violent, how will Fatah/Hamas unity bring about a peace deal?)

Left with no real arguments to criticize Israel, the editors of the New
York Times rely on time worn cliches to feign their interest in peace.

0 Comments:

Links to this post:

About Me

I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 12 to 33 years and eight grandchildren. Three of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com